THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.
MANUEL the house without permission and attempted to arrest
BAUTISTA, defendant and appellant.
RESISTANCE TO AGENTS OF THE AUTHORITIES ;
RESISTING ARREST.—One who resists an arrest, without
knowing that the person or persons who are attempting
to make the arrest are vested with authority. but who
submits to the arrest immediately upon being informed
that such persons have a right to make the arrest, is not
guilty of the crime of resistance to the agents of the
authorities.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Tarlac. Nepomuceno, J.
The fact are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mauricio llagan for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.
JOHNSON, J.:
This defendant was charged with the crime of assault
upon agents of the authorities and insulting them. Upon
said complaint the defendant was arrested, arraigned,
tried, found guilty, .and sentenced by the Honorable
Vicente Nepomuceno to be imprisoned for a period of
four years two months and one day of prisión
correccional, with the accessory penalties of article 61
of the Penal Code, -to pay a fine of P300, and in case of
insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, in
accordance with the provisions of the law, and to pay
the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed
to this court.
In this court the appellant alleges that the evidence
adduced during the trial of the cause was not sufficient
to show that he was guilty of the crime charged in the
complaint.
The record shows that some time in the month of
November, 1914, an order of arrest was issued for the
defendant and placed in the hands of the chief of police
of the municipality of Gerona. On or about the 15th of
November, the chief of police, accompanied by another
policeman, went to the house where the defendant was
staying for the purpose of making the arrest. Upon
arrival at the house, inquiry was made of some of the
occupants whether or not the defendant was there.
Upon being informed that he was in the house, the
policeman who accompanied the chief of police entered
the defendant without explaining to him the cause or
nature of his presence there. The defendant, according
to the declaration of the chief of police, resisted the
arrest, calling to his neighbors for assistance, using the
following language: "Come here; there are some
bandits here and they are abusing me." Many of his
neighbors, hearing his cry, according to the testimony of
the chief of police, immediately came to his assistance
and surrounded his house.
The policeman, who accompanied the chief, in his
declaration said that when he attempted to arrest the
defendant, the defendant said to him: "Why do you
enter my house, you shameless brigands?" and called to
one Basilio, saying: "There are some bandits here!"
The policeman further testified that he then informed
the defendant that he came there f or the purpose of
arresting him, and the defendant asked him if he had an
order of arrest. which question was answered by the
policeman in the affirmative. Said policeman further
testified that immediately after he had notified the
defendant that he was a policeman and had an order of
arrest, the defendant submitted to the arrest without
further resistance or objection.
The whole record shows that the resistance given by
the defendant was done under the belief that the
persons who had entered his house were tulisanes. The
record also shows, by the declaration of the witnesses
for the prosecution, that as soon as he had been
informed that they were officers of the law, armed with
an order of arrest, he peaceably submitted and
accompanied them. We do not believe that the law
contemplates the punishment of persons for resistance
of the authorities under circumstances such as those
which are disclosed in the present case. If the
defendant believed that those who had entered his
house were, in fact, tulisanes, he was entirely justified
in calling his neighbors and in making an attempt to
expel them from his premises.
After a careful examination of the evidence, we are of
the opinion that the record does not disclose sufficient
facts to justify the sentence imposed by. the lower
court. The defendant is not guilty of the crime described
in the complaint. The sentence of the lower court is
theref ore hereby revoked, the complaint is hereby
ordered dismissed, and the defendant is discharged
from the custody of the law. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.

Judgment reversed. United States vs. Bautista., 31 Phil.

308, No. 10678 August 17, 1915